HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2006-08-21SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Pagel
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, AUGUST 21, 2006 AT 8:00 P.M.
Regular Meeting:
San Rafael City Council
Also Present: Ken Nordhoff, City Manager
Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
OPEN SESSION — COUNCIL CHAMBER — 6:00 PM
Mayor Boro announced Closed Session items.
Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember
Absent: Gary O. Phillips, Vice -Mayor
CLOSED SESSION — CONFERENCE ROOM 201 - 6:00 PM — File 1-4-1a
1. a) Conference with Labor Negotiators — Government Code Section 54957.6
Negotiators: Ken Nordhoff, Nancy Mackle, Lydia Romero, Donna Williamson, Richard Whitmore
Employee Organization (s): San Rafael Firefighters' Association
San Rafael Fire Chief Officers' Association
San Rafael Police Association
San Rafael Police Mid -Management Association
Association of Confidential Employees
Western Council of Engineers
SEIU Miscellaneous & Supervisory
b) Conference with Legal Counsel — Anticipated Litigation
Government Code Section 54956.9(c)
Initiation of Litigation — One Case
C) Public Employee Performance Evaluation — Government Code Section 54957(b)(1)
Title: City Manager
City Attorney Gary Ragghianti announced that no reportable action was taken on 1.a), 1.b)
or 1.c).
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE:
8:10 PM
Certificate of Appreciation re: Eichler and Alliance Homes:- File 102 x 10-2
Cliff Meneken, Terra Linda Architectural Review Committee, stated this committee was set up in the
aftermath and because of the second floor Eichler and Alliance dispute some two and a half years ago
which culminated with an historic vote to put a zoning overlay district in that area, preventing any future
second floors. He indicated they wished to present a Certificate of Appreciation to the City Council from
the approximately twenty member committee which had been doing work to help mediate disputes, and to
work with Bob Brown, Community Development Director, to improve standards and criteria for architectural
review there. He believed the City Council vote was appreciated throughout the Bay Area as a showing that
a City Council could respond to the majority of people in the community who desperately wanted this.
Arthur Duffy read the Certificate of Appreciation:
"Insofar as the City of San Rafael enacted a special zoning ordinance in February, 2004,
which banned construction of any 2nd floors in Eichler and Alliance subdivisions of 1200
homes in Terra Linda, and required other roof modifications to be subject to more stringent
review; and
That this historic enactment has been an unqualified success in protecting the
architectural integrity, privacy and open space of the neighborhood; and
That this enactment has been unanimously endorsed and supported by the whole
community; and
That this enactment directly led to the establishment in late 2004 of the Terra Linda Architectural
Review Committee (TLARC), which oversees the various CC&Rs in the neighborhood and gives
guidance to the Planning Department on local architectural criteria and issues.
WHEREFORE, in appreciation of the aforementioned actions, on behalf of our community, the
TLARC hereby awards the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Rafael a special
Certificate of Appreciation for their efforts to preserve and protect our community."
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 1
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 2
Undeclared Wars: - File 9-1
Rachel Bell read excerpts from a document entitled "Six Violations of Constitutional Law in Public Law 107-
243" and John Jenkel requested that the City Council agendize an item at the next City Council meeting
urging Congress to cease fire in undeclared war.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar, as
follows:
The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion, at the request of
Councilmember Cohen:
4. SUMMARY OF LEGISLATION AFFECTING SAN RAFAEL (CM) — FILE 116 x 9-1
Referring to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle over the weekend regarding Proposition
90, Councilmember Cohen stated he agreed with the recommendation to go on record
opposing this and indicated that he would like staff to further evaluate the analysis. Explaining
that this proposition had to do with eminent domain, he noted it included language similar to a
number of other propositions in other western states this year also, having to do with what was
considered a regulatory taking and the requirement to compensate for the expected economic
return of an action. Councilmember Cohen indicated he was aware that many constituents had
been concerned about the increasing number of constraints put on the City by the courts and
Sacramento in terms of local land use regulation and should the San Francisco Chronicle's
analysis of the language in Proposition 90 be correct, those constraints would get much more
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 2
ITEM
RECOMMENDED ACTION
2.
Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of
Minutes approved as submitted.
Monday, August 7, 2006 (CC)
3.
Resolution Waiving the Competitive Bidding
RESOLUTION NO. 12019 —
Requirement of Chapter 2.55 of the San Rafael
RESOLUTION WAIVING THE
Municipal Code and Authorizing the Community
COMPETITIVE BIDDING
Development Director to Execute a Sole Source
REQUIREMENT OF CHAPTER
Contract with Coordinated Resources, Inc. for
2.55.070(D) OF THE SAN RAFAEL
Purchase of Office Furniture (CD) —
MUNICIPAL CODE AND
File 4-2-301 x 9-3-85
AUTHORIZING THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO
EXECUTE A SOLE SOURCE
CONTRACT WITH COORDINATED
RESOURCES, INC. FOR PURCHASE
OF OFFICE FURNITURE IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $55,000
5.
Resolution Authorizing Execution of Professional
RESOLUTION NO. 12020 -
Services Agreement with Peckham & McKenney
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
for Executive Recruitment Search for Assistant
EXECUTION OF CONTRACT FOR
City Manager (CM) — File 4-3-465 x 4-3-458
CONSULTANT SERVICES WITH
PECKHAM & MCKENNEY FOR
EXECUTIVE RECRUITMENT FOR
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
6.
Resolution of Appreciation to Carlene McCart,
RESOLUTION NO. 12021 —
Community Services Director, for Exceptional
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO
Work on the Pickleweed Park Community Center
CARLENE MCCART, COMMUNITY
and Library Project (CM) -
SERVICES DIRECTOR, FOR
File 102 x 267 x 9-3-65 x 4-1-572
EXCEPTIONAL WORK ON THE
PICKLEWEED PARK COMMUNITY
CENTER AND LIBRARY PROJECT
7.
Monthly Investment Report for Month Ending
Accepted Monthly Investment Report
July, 2006 (MS) - File 8-18 x 8-9
for month ending July, 2006, as
presented.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen,
Heller, Miller and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips
ABSTAINING: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen (from item #2 only, due to absence from
meeting)
The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion, at the request of
Councilmember Cohen:
4. SUMMARY OF LEGISLATION AFFECTING SAN RAFAEL (CM) — FILE 116 x 9-1
Referring to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle over the weekend regarding Proposition
90, Councilmember Cohen stated he agreed with the recommendation to go on record
opposing this and indicated that he would like staff to further evaluate the analysis. Explaining
that this proposition had to do with eminent domain, he noted it included language similar to a
number of other propositions in other western states this year also, having to do with what was
considered a regulatory taking and the requirement to compensate for the expected economic
return of an action. Councilmember Cohen indicated he was aware that many constituents had
been concerned about the increasing number of constraints put on the City by the courts and
Sacramento in terms of local land use regulation and should the San Francisco Chronicle's
analysis of the language in Proposition 90 be correct, those constraints would get much more
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 2
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 3
severe financially. He explained that if the City were to adopt a regulation, for example, on
second stories, someone could sue the City claiming that they had been deprived of economic
return because if they had built the second story the house would have been a lot more
valuable, and therefore, to adopt such a regulation, the City could be forced to pay for what they
expected to sell the house for with the second story.
Councilmember Cohen stated that the campaign would be about Eminent Domain and forcing
some grandmother out of her house, which he did not believe San Rafael had ever done;
however, the heart of the proposition concerned limiting government's authority to regulate land
use.
Councilmember Cohen stated that this analysis, which he assumed was generated by the
League of California Cities, indicated that it only applied to new law and he would like to ensure
the City was really clear about that. He noted that had this been in place a couple of years ago,
San Rafael might not be receiving the award (Certificate of Appreciation re Eichler and Alliance
Homes) as the City would be loath to adopt new law that would expose it to potential financial
ruin.
Indicating he would like further work done on the analysis to understand why the San Francisco
Chronicle believed it might go beyond just new law, Councilmember Cohen suggested that the
City Council not only oppose it but make it clear to the residents of San Rafael what was at
stake with it. He noted it was not about abuse of Eminent Domain, rather it concerned further
severe restrictions on the City's ability locally to regulate land use, which carried severe
financial consequences, and he believed San Rafael residents deserved to be apprised of this.
Mayor Boro requested that Lydia Romero, Assistant to the City Manager, follow up on this.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, that San Rafael go on
record as opposing Proposition 90.
Lydia Romero confirmed she would ensure the campaign was aware that the San Rafael City
Council was on record opposing this.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips
SPECIAL PRESENTATION:
8. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO CARLENE MCCART,
COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR, FOR EXCEPTIONAL WORK ON THE PICKLEWEED
PARK COMMUNITY CENTER AND LIBRARY PROJECT (CM) —
FILE 102 x 267 x 9-3-65 x 4-1-572
Inviting Community Services Director Carlene McCart to the podium, Mayor Boro explained that
Carlene had worked very hard, as many people had, on the Pickleweed Park Expansion and
her fellow workers, especially, thought that some honor and tribute should be paid to her for her
leadership.
Quoting from the Resolution of Appreciation, Mayor Boro stated: "The recently completed
renovation of the Pickleweed Park Community Center came about due to the contributions of
literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people, perhaps none more important than those of
Community Services Director Carlene McCart, aka `Julie the Cruise Director'."
Indicating that the resolution also addressed the unprecedented collaboration between the City
and the neighborhood, Mayor Boro quoted: "Carlene understood that the best way to achieve
this lofty and complex goal was to bring residents and City representatives together as a
cohesive body with a single shared dream: building a community center that will serve San
Rafael's most dynamic community now and for the foreseeable future; and
Carlene energized every individual group who participated in the planning, fund-raising, design
and construction of Pickleweed, working hard for consensus every step of the way."
On behalf of the City Council and the San Rafael community, Mayor Boro stated this resolution
thanked Ms. McCart and acknowledged the great work she had done.
Thanking everyone, Ms. McCart stated that San Rafael had a beautiful building to show for the
almost eight years of work on the project. Noting a wonderful experience to keep always was
created, she explained this was working together as a City group with not only existing skills but
gaining new experiences on how to better serve the community. Indicating it was a wonderful
experience, Ms. McCart stated she couldn't wait to do the next one.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 3
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 4
PUBLIC HEARING:
9. Public Hearing — PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS (PSP): CONSIDERATION OF 11
APPLICATIONS AND DETERMINATION OF WHICH APPLICATIONS SHOULD BE
GRANTED PSP FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE CIRCULATION -IMPACTED AREAS OF
NORTH SAN RAFAEL, CENTRAL SAN RAFAEL, WEST FRANCISCO BLVD. CORRIDOR,
AND EAST SAN RAFAEL; P05-07 (CD) — FILE 115 (PSP)
In his introductory comments, City Manager Ken Nordhoff reported that for close to two
decades the City has had variations of policies and practices that were put into place to disallow
a first -in, build -it -first approach in terms of using up remaining traffic capacity. This, and
previous Councils, had been desirous of looking at public benefit from a number of projects;
therefore, tonight presented the first opportunity under the new PSP (Project Selection Process)
to evaluate the benefits associated with a number of applications. Mr. Nordhoff issued a
reminder that tonight Council would not be discussing any of the projects based on their merits,
rather strictly focusing on the applications as they related to PSP and traffic allocation.
Mr. Nordhoff stated Raffi Boloyan, Senior Planner, would make a comprehensive presentation
on the PSP.
Raffi Boloyan explained that he would give an overview of the PSP, its purposes, how it was
formed and the process so far, to be followed by presentations and staff recommendations on
each of the four separate areas —
• North San Rafael;
• Central San Rafael;
• West Francisco Boulevard area; and
• East San Rafael
He indicated that the applicants were present and would make presentations should they so
choose and the City Council could ask questions of staff and the applicants. Subsequent to
taking public comment, Council would deliberate and act on each application.
Using a PowerPoint presentation Mr. Boloyan explained that the purposes of PSP, were:
• To take a macro view of traffic impacts of likely future development projects to determine
whether there was adequate traffic capacity and the constraints; and
• To give the City Council more choice in selecting the most desired projects in areas with
limited traffic capacity rather than a first in, first out approach as referenced by Mr.
Nordhoff earlier.
Mr. Boloyan explained that PSP used be called PPP (Priority Projects Procedure) which had
been in existence since 1988 as part of General Plan 2000. He indicated that PSP was
developed as part of General Plan 2020 to implement the applicable policies of General Plan
2020.
Noting the three main policies:
Land Use Policy 2
Land Use Policy 3
Program 3A
Mr. Boloyan explained that these address the timing of development with needed transportation
improvements through the year 2020 and establish this as a process for selecting the projects
that provide the most community benefit. He indicated that the PSP process also implements
the specific Level of Service standards that the City has established for intersections and
arterials.
To better explain the PSP process, Mr. Boloyan stated he would begin with what it was not:
PSP was not an entitlement to develop. It did not grant any type of Land Use
entitlement to move forward with development.
PSP was not a commitment by the City to approve subsequent development
applications.
Explaining what it was Mr. Boloyan stated:
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 4
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 5
• It was definitely unique to the City of San Rafael.
• It was an authorization by the Council for projects to pursue subsequent project
entitlements while the City held or reserved available traffic capacity while going through
the process.
• It was a process allowing the City Council to allocate limited capacity to the most desired
land uses in developments providing identified community benefits.
• PSP was also usually the first step in an application process, with detailed project
review, including CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) analysis that follows.
• PSP determination reserves potential traffic capacity for a project for up to two years
while projects pursue all required planning applications, environmental review and
building permits.
• If a project is granted PSP approval it is still thoroughly reviewed through the
development review and CEQA processes.
• Changes to a project occurring during the formal development review process that result
in more trips or other modifications to a PSP approval would require that the project
reapply and receive PSP determination in a subsequent year.
• PSP allows the City Council the ability to select any projects amongst those competing
that they find best respond to the priorities of the City as listed in the General Plan or in
the PSP resolution, regardless of their rating or staff recommendation.
Regarding PSP as it relates to CEQA, Mr. Boloyan explained that since PSP was not a
development entitlement it was not subject to CEQA review. The PSP and traffic analysis that
occur during this process was really at the macro level (the big picture). He indicated that
subsequent project traffic analysis during the review of the formal planning applications could
identify significant impacts, such as operational problems, freeway ramps, queuing, that warrant
an EIR (Environmental Impact Report) and further review, which were outside of the scope of
the PSP.
Mr. Boloyan reported that analysis during the formal review of planning applications would also
review impacts of the other facets of the environment, including biology, hydrology, aesthetics,
etc.
Explaining this year's PSP process, which commenced in 2005, Mr. Boloyan stated that in
2004, concurrent with the adoption of General Plan 2020, the City Council also adopted
Resolution No. 11666, which established the procedures, review criteria and rating system for
PSP. Notices inviting applications for this year's competition of PSP were mailed in November,
2005 and a January 13, 2006 deadline was established. He noted that a pre -application
workshop for applicants was held in December, 2005 and eleven applications were submitted
by the filing deadline. Since that time, a PSP staff committee, composed of various
representatives from different City departments, conducted four meetings reviewing and ranking
the various projects. Mr. Boloyan reported that traffic modeling was completed for thirty
different scenarios of projects and based on all of this, the PSP committee used the ratings
established by the Council Resolution to rate the projects, and their recommendations were
forwarded to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed these applications
at their July 25, 2006 meeting and forwarded their recommendations to the City Council as part
of the staff report.
Regarding the rating criteria, Mr. Boloyan explained that PSP had established three different
areas for rating applications:
• The public benefit — four areas where a project could qualify as providing public benefit:
J Affordable housing
J- High tax generating uses
4- Needed community facility
J- A project that creates or constructs a needed community use.
• Circulation system;
• Timing and project readiness of applications.
Regarding Pubic Benefits, Mr. Boloyan explained that for the affordable housing ratings, the
rating assigned to projects was based on the percentage of affordability that a project proposed
above and beyond what the City normally would require for affordable housing.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 5
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 6
In terms of the High Tax Generating Uses, Mr. Boloyan reported that a rating was assigned to
projects based on the yearly sales tax dollars they would generate. This goes directly to the
City, divided by the new trip generation a project would create — a.m. and p.m. trips totalled
together. Mr. Boloyan noted that the Measure `S' funds approved by the voters in 2005 were
not used in the calculations. He explained that when the process commenced, the Measure `S'
implications were not yet known; therefore, to be fair they were not used. However, in
reviewing them after the fact, staff determined that it would not have changed any of the ratings,
which proportionally would have risen or dropped; therefore, for comparison purposes, they
remained the same.
With regard to Needed Community Facility or Use, Mr. Boloyan reported that a rating was
assigned to projects based on the amount of contribution to a priority facility or use a project
would provide. A slide depicted some of the Needed Community Facilities identified in the PSP
resolution and a further slide depicted some of the Needed Community Uses identified as City
priorities in the PSP resolution.
Mr. Boloyan stated that in rating the Circulation Impacts, a rating was assigned based on the
project's effect on traffic operations, including intersections and arterials and what type of
mitigations would be required, and they were ranked from Unacceptable to Excellent.
Regarding Project Readiness, Mr. Boloyan explained this was the status of the project's
environmental review and project applications, how far they were along in the process, what
type of environmental review could be required and how feasible it was for it to receive all
approvals and begin construction within a two-year time limit. These were rated from Not
Applicable to Excellent.
Public Hearing #1 - North San Rafael Area:
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened.
Mr. Boloyan reported that two applications were submitted:
1) San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility — a proposal for a new privately developed
85,000 square -foot indoor recreational facility with two outdoor fields; and
2) Professional Center Parkway/Channing Way (Lookout Mountain) — an 11 -unit single-
family residential subdivision with two Below Market Rate units on a vacant hillside site.
Mr. Boloyan reported that the traffic analysis conducted for these two projects studied five
intersections and two arterials in the North San Rafael area. After including these projects in
the City's model, both North San Rafael projects, individually and cumulatively, complied with
the City's Level of Service standards and did not cause any impacts to the studied intersections
or arterials.
Based on that, Mr. Boloyan stated that both staff and the Planning Commission recommended
granting PSP for both these North San Rafael projects.
To clarify the situation, Councilmember Cohen stated it was his understanding that the City
Council was not in any way acting on the merits of a project or granting any entitlements or
passing any judgment on the project in any way. In other words, he stated that each of these
particular projects in the North San Rafael area would individually go through an approval
process, whatever environmental or Planning Commission review, and if ultimately appealed to
the City Council a hearing would take place, Council would hear testimony, weigh the project on
its merits and approve or deny it based on the merits of the testimony and the evidence
received. Councilmember Cohen confirmed that tonight's action was to reserve traffic capacity
and agree to allow the projects to reserve that traffic capacity for two years so that they could
move through the process knowing that traffic capacity was held should they successfully get
through the process. He noted this could have the effect of freezing someone out who came
along while these two moved through the process because traffic capacity had been allocated
and that was the only decision being made this evening.
Confirming that this was an excellent assessment, Community Development Director Bob
Brown noted that the only real difference was that City Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian's
model would show those projects in it; therefore, when used on subsequent development
projects, it would indicate these projects being assumed.
Councilmember Cohen confirmed that subsequently, should a project be denied, those trips
would be released back in the model; however, in the meantime should a project come along,
staff might indicate that until completion of this cycle, there was insufficient capacity.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 6
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 7
Having received PSP for a specific time period, in the event of an application being changed,
Councilmember Heller inquired whether this would initiate an entirely new process.
Mr. Boloyan stated that in going through the process some projects might revise their proposal,
expand intensity or generate more trips, and should this be what ultimately was approved, they
would have to return, reapply for PSP and be found to have a public benefit.
Councilmember Cohen confirmed that in the event a project reduced its impact without reducing
the benefit that supplied the rating, PSP would remain as granted, noting that while PSP was
not flexible upwards, it was flexible downward. He noted also that reducing the number of
affordable units would trigger a new PSP review.
There being no comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 12022— RESOLUTION GRANTING 2005 PROJECT SELECTION
PROCESS (PSP) DETERMINATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT
IN THE NORTH SAN RAFAEL AREA; City File Nos.: PSP05-
09 and PSP05-07
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips
Public Hearing #2 — Central San Rafael Area:
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened:
Mr. Boloyan reported that four applications were filed in the Central San Rafael Area:
1) 2416 Fifth Avenue (Emma Court subdivision), also known as the Camgros property.
This proposal was for a 15 -unit single-family subdivision, with two BMR units on site.
2) Village at Loch Lomond — an 84 -unit subdivision with 18 BMR units, 6 acres of park
improvements and some commercial redevelopment and recreational redevelopment of
the property at the Loch Lomond Marina.
3) San Pedro Cove Phase III — a vacant piece of land just west of the San Pedro School
along Point San Pedro Road. The project proposes an 11 -unit single-family subdivision,
with two on-site Below Market Rate units.
4) 320 Third Street (Whole Foods Expansion) - a 3,000 square -foot expansion to the
existing grocery store. A $75,000 contribution is proposed to the Canal Alliance to help
purchase a market in the Canal area, and would increase sales tax to the City by
$7,350.00 annually.
Mr. Boloyan reported that for the Central San Rafael Area, 21 intersections and 2 arterials were
analyzed for traffic impacts. As documented in the staff report, he indicated that all of the
projects individually and cumulatively met the Level of Service standards, except that the Whole
Foods proposal would continue to create operational issues at the intersection of Third and
Union Streets, which was of great concern for staff in reviewing it.
Mr. Boloyan stated that both the Planning Commission and staff recommended granting PSP
for three of the four projects: The Emma Court subdivision; The Village at Loch Lomond and
San Pedro Cove Phase III subdivision, and denying PSP for the Whole Foods expansion,
primarily based on the continued operational issues by the use at the intersection of Third and
Union Streets and the lack of a tangible public benefit.
Mr. Boloyan stated staff wished to note that the Planning Commission recommendation on the
Central San Rafael area was actually a split vote: 3:2 in favor of the three recommendations for
approval. He reported that the two dissenting Commissioners indicated their dissent was solely
based on the Whole Foods application as they believed that application also should have been
granted PSP determination.
Councilmember Miller confirmed with Mr. Mansourian that the operational issues with Whole
Foods was making the eastbound left turn onto Union Street, which Mr. Mansourian indicated
already exceeded capacity. Mr. Mansourian noted that northbound Union had the issue of only
one lane, with a large number of vehicles wishing to turn left into the Whole Foods parking lot.
Responding to Councilmember Heller's inquiry about future plans to improve this, Mr
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 7
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 8
Mansourian stated staff had been working with the neighborhood. He noted Montecito
Shopping Center had already done its share of the improvement and the project was almost
complete.
Keith Bloom, representing the applicant on the Loch Lomond Marina project, stated he was
present to answer any questions Council might have regarding this application.
Frank Batat, Loch Lomond, stated that having lived at Loch Lomond since 1959, he had seen
lots of changes in the City and was absolutely astounded to note that anyone on City staff
believed the intersections at Third and Irwin and Third and Hetherton deserved any further flow
of traffic. Anyone from East San Rafael going through that intersection felt very frustrated, and
he did not believe anyone representing the City did that on a regular basis and was aware of
what he was talking about. Before passing anything, he requested that the City Council try
traveling through during high traffic periods to see what it was really like. Until they did this, he
did not believe they were in a position to approve it and it would be a travesty of justice to do so
Indicating that the Loch Lomond development proposed to cut down on the size of the market in
the commercial development, Mr. Batat stated this would just add more traffic going to United
Market, Whole Foods and through the City of San Rafael. In looking at the application, he
noted that by reducing the amount of commercial space they believed the traffic impact was
being reduced; however, this was not so. Adding the 84 units and taking away the commercial
development would put that much more traffic onto Third Street / Montecito Area and going on
through the intersection.
In the interests of fairness and good sense, Mr. Batat requested that the issue be put on hold.
He stated he would be happy to pick up members of the City Council any day at 7:30 a.m. to
drive through the intersection a few times and see the situation through the drivers' eyes. He
indicated that until those intersections were dealt with and until those already in residence had
some ease of traffic movement, it was unfair to consider adding to their misery.
Jeannie Cohn, President, Loch Lomond Homeowners Association, stated she believed the City
Council had previously received a packet from them addressing their concerns; however,
having read the new packet, they had additional questions.
Ms. Cohn stated that the amount of land to be used for housing was not clear; the figures
ranged from 9 to 10.7 acres.
Mayor Boro indicated to Ms. Cohn that the plan itself was not under discussion this evening,
rather the traffic, and he invited her to differentiate.
Ms. Cohn stated that her reason for raising that point was that should there be a change in the
amount of land houses could be built on, that would call for additional traffic; therefore, exactly
what the application was calling for should be determined.
Indicating there was also contradiction regarding the size of the market, Ms. Cohn stated that
the size of the market would determine how much traffic would be generated. A 3,000 — 5,000
square -foot market compared to the current market size would mean a lot more traffic having to
go along Third Street to Whole Foods, Trader Joes, etc.; therefore, the size of the market
needed to be determined. Ms. Cohn noted that the public was not receiving any clear
information on a lot of the points raised.
Ms. Cohn indicated they were not clear on exactly how many units there would be, i.e., 84 units,
or less or more than 84 units, and she inquired as to what the City's position was on this
request. She stated they also did not understand why the Third Street corridor had not been
studied more. As indicated by the previous speaker, she stated it was not just bad in the
morning, rather also at 12 Noon, 3:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. and the traffic had not been calculated
to take this into effect.
Regarding the amount of funds the new recreational area would generate, Ms. Cohn stated they
currently had a wonderful recreational area at no cost to the tenants who might wish to buy
homes there, and at no cost to the people who own businesses, and she believed it unfair to tax
these people for that. She noted that with the current plans, parking would reduce the amount
of people who would be able to go to the Marina to launch their boats, walk their dogs, hike, and
bicyclists who wished to park their cars and ride out to China Camp; therefore, she believed the
recreational facilities would be decreased.
Ms. Cohn stated she would like to see a lot of questions they had raised in their letter answered
before the City Council came to any type of conclusion on PSP.
Jackie Schmidt, Montecito Area Residents Association, noted they wrote a letter which was
included as an addendum this evening. She indicated that their issue with the intersection of
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 8
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 9
Third and Union Streets was safety. They were concerned about auto safety when the lane on
Third was blocked because of the left turn lane spilling over, and on Union Street, cars were
turning left and right in front of through traffic attempting to get to Montecito. Noting they were
particularly concerned about pedestrian safety, Ms. Schmidt stated she could barely make it
across Third Street on a green light with her running shoes on. She indicated there were
hundreds of elderly people living in Aldersly and San Rafael Commons within a block and a half
who liked to go to Montecito, and it was scary to see them attempt to cross Third Street. Also,
San Rafael High School students walk in the traffic lanes of Third Street at lunchtime because
of their numbers. She noted Mr. Mansourian had a plan to remedy all of this, including the
sidewalks.
Indicating they love Whole Foods and noting their cooperation and helpfulness in general in the
neighborhood, Ms. Schmidt stated, however, that the intersection was really dangerous and
they believed the expansion (prepared food facilities) would make this dangerous intersection
more dangerous. While they would like to see that expansion, they did not wish to see it until
the intersection was fixed and made safer. Ms. Schmidt stated they really appreciated the fact
that Whole Foods was willing to donate money to the Canal to try to get a grocery store;
however, donating money did not address the issue of safety at that intersection.
Sarah Jensen, Lochinvar, stated she was speaking on behalf of the LLMC, the Marina
Committee of the Point San Pedro Road Coalition. She indicated that they submitted a memo
to the Planning Commission, included in tonight's packet, which she assumed the City Council
had already studied; however, their concern echoed previous sentiments that the area from the
high school to the freeway entrance was very congested and dangerous, both for cars and
pedestrians. She believed that doing a standard type study on this situation probably did not
capture the full extent of the existing problems and they, similar to other speakers, requested
that the City Council not act on this until after the planned improvements were carried out and a
thorough study was done to ascertain whether the anticipated impact was achieved.
Indicating they had some concerns about the resolution should the item be adopted this
evening, Ms. Jensen explained that page 3 A) Affordable Housing states "With a residential
component over 84 units..." and she inquired why the language indicated "over 84 units" when
the proposal was only for 84 units. Page 3 B) Needed Community Use, Ms. Jensen noted the
resolution stated: "The contribution of over $1 million in recreational improvements which will be
open to the general public...." and she indicated there was some question in their minds as to
whether or not this was an accurate statement, because BCDC (Bay Conservation and
Development Commission) would not allow this bayshore to be closed to the public. She stated
that this was something that already existed, could not be closed, and while improvements
would aid in the sale of the new housing units, it was not something that already existed and the
current owners should be taking better care of the pathways.
Referring to page 4 Findings, Ms. Jensen quoted: "The project proposed to develop housing on
a `housing opportunity' site by redeveloping an underutilized site, which is a priority for the City."
She indicated that in many citizens' minds there was a question as to whether or not this was
appropriate language because there was concern about how that designation was reached,
and whether it was done in an appropriate manner and with full input from all citizens. There
were questions about the composition of the steering committee, of the way the charettes were
held, the developer's participation in the charettes, the way contributions to the charettes were
recorded and the EIR finding that housing on the site would result in unmitigateable water
quality damage. She noted the Findings also stated: "Furthermore, the project would provide a
significant amount of park improvements that would be privately constructed and maintained
and be accessible to the public." Ms. Jensen stated she already had covered the part about
accessible to the public; however, the way the financing for this was set up now appeared
incompatible with the description of this project as designed for reasonably priced housing.
Ms. Jensen stated that while it provided quite a few Below Market Rate units, it also claimed to
provide a lot of affordable by design units and yet those who lived there were going to have to
pay for private roads at a site where the geotechnical study indicated the roads and
underground utilities would not last as long as usual, and they would also have to endlessly pay
for public recreation, and Ms. Jensen believed the two concepts seemed incompatible. Although
this was a less than prime location for a merchant, Ms. Jensen stated that these merchants
would be required to pay for public recreation whereas merchants in much more prime locations
in the City were not required to pay for public recreation; therefore, again there was a question
about fairness.
Continuing with the Findings, Ms. Jensen quoted: "Although the planning applications have not
been approved, the project has undergone numerous public meetings and review by the Design
Review Board and Planning Commission" and she stated that this statement would appear to
indicate that thus far there had been approval for the project, yet those who had been attending
these meetings had heard lots of expressions of concern with regard to privacy issues,
insufficient parking, design issues, etc., and the public was still trying to get some basic pieces
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 9
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 10
of information. In short, Ms. Jensen stated it appeared too soon to be making a judgment.
Ms. Jensen noted the difference in the size of the land to be given over to housing, which could
make a difference of 50 cars per day.
Lastly, Ms. Jensen noted that under Phase II the traffic impact declines; however, they did not
understand how this could be possible unless the discussion only concerned the traffic impact
on the corner of Point San Pedro Road and Lochinvar, which was not a PSP place for traffic
analysis. As she understood it, the traffic analysis should focus on the congested area in the
Third Street corridor by the high school. She inquired how adding more houses and taking
away neighborhood serving commercial could be a decline.
Alice Vipiana stated that for years she had been active in attending public meetings and
recalled at the time of the Planning Department studies when a report was presented
mentioning the need for mitigating the traffic at Third and Union Streets, a member of staff
stated: "We are going to mitigate that traffic by removing the market." Believing removing the
market would not mitigate the traffic, Ms. Vipiana stated that every time she "forgot to pick up a
quart of milk" she would have to go to Third and Union.
Also, the idea that the market could be replaced by a smaller store was not being looked at
correctly and Ms. Vipiana invited Council to read the letters from Scotty's Market owner and
from the owner of the market on Fifth Avenue, both of whom were very irate about the fact that
they were totally misrepresented. She indicated they also stated that it was totally unrealistic to
think a small market would come to Loch Lomond to replace the market already established
there. (Ms. Vipiana believed another mini -market was not needed at Loch Lomond, rather a full
service market). She stated the idea that the present owner could move into a smaller place
was not financially feasible.
Regarding Disaster Preparedness, Ms. Vipiana believed this project had not looked at that
issue sufficiently, and she requested that the City Council stop and consider all of these points
before moving forward.
Bob Dawson questioned why this particular area was considered Central San Rafael as it
appeared very east to him. Curious as to when the traffic surveys were done, Mr. Dawson
stated that in summertime, Third and Union and all the way to Lincoln was bad, with the
schools out; therefore, he questioned whether the surveys were carried out during the time of
most traffic.
Expressing concern about the time for development, Mr. Dawson stated that two phases would
be somewhere in the neighborhood of eight years of continual upheaval and extra traffic.
Noting a comment on the underutilized property, he stated that was underutilized on purpose
and explained that the idea when the entire area was built was that they would not have parks
or other recreation such as Glenwood, etc., rather it was a marina area and open to the public
for boating and access to the bay. He stated it was left open intentionally and was not
underutilized and was zoned that way. He noted that General Plan 2020 saw fit to essentially
rezone this so that it could be developed.
Mr. Dawson requested that the City Council take a very close look at this and think about the
residents and what they would be exposed to in proceeding with this type of program.
There being no further comment from the audience Mayor Boro closed the public hearing
Community Development Director Bob Brown stated that as mentioned by Mr. Boloyan at the
outset, the PSP process does occur often in parallel with the other entitlements — the merits
process of a project — and in this case, the Loch Lomond application had been going on for
quite some time.
In response to questions from the public, Mr. Brown stated that the applicant was looking at
changing the project based upon comments they received from the DRB, Planning Commission
and requests from the public. He noted that one of these changes would be a full-service
market, which was a direction from the Planning Commission at the end of July; therefore, they
would be submitting a proposal with a full-service market similar in size to Scotty's, and this
would have some traffic implications. Indicating that Mr. Mansourian could explain this better,
Mr. Brown reported that the traffic counts discussed in the EIR were based as though a traffic
counting tube was placed at the entrance to the site, i.e., the trips the site generates. Reducing
the size of a full-service market would reduce the traffic to and from the site; however, those
trips would stay on Third Street and have to go to Whole Foods, Trader Joe's or United Market,
etc., and in looking at the results of the EIR, not much of a reduction was evident in the impacts
at those intersections from a reduced market because those trips were still on the road
somewhere. However, this point would be moot because the applicant would be proposing an
alternative that had a full-sized market.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 10
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 11
Considering the question raised by Ms. Cohn and Ms. Jensen as to what the traffic generation
would be with the revised proposal, Mr. Brown stated that Mr. Mansourian would be evaluating
this. He already has commenced some analysis based on what was received very theoretically
from the applicant; however, since the resolution was confusing in that it spoke about Phase I
and Phase 11, staff suggested that should there be a PSP allocation it be the worst case
allocation, 75 a.m. and 80 p.m. peak hour trips. This was the Phase I project with a full-sized
market as currently exists. Mr. Brown stated that should the project be revised and become
larger in any way, with more units or more total square -footage of commercial, and it did not fit
within these limits, the developer would have to return at a future PSP process.
Noting Council had before it an application from the applicant, Mayor Boro confirmed that
Council was not being requested to change the application with a hypothetical.
Mr. Brown explained that Mr. Mansourian looked at two cases: Phase I which had the majority
of housing at 60 some housing units, plus retaining the existing market as a full-sized market;
Phase 11 reduced that market size and added some residential units, which would not be the
proposal any longer, as it would be a full-sized market, and that resulted in the Phase 11 trips
going down into negative number. However, that would no longer be the case based on what
staff understood the applicant would be bringing forward. Therefore, staff's suggestion was to
go with the Phase I numbers which Mr. Mansourian analyzed and did fit better with Level of
Service policies. He indicated that this provided the ultimate maximum this project could go to
with the PSP proposal.
Mayor Boro stated that should PSP be granted for this project this evening it was based on
certain assumptions. The applicant would then do their EIR, design work, etc., and as a result
changes could occur to that application which could be different from what was reflected in this
evening's process. The question, therefore, was how at that point in time a potentially approved
project with EIR, etc. could be related to what could be approved this evening.
Mr. Brown stated staff would evaluate the ultimate project being presented to the City Council
for final merits review. Maximum trip generation from that project would be evaluated and his
contention was that should it fall within 75 additional morning trips and/or 80 additional evening
trips, it complied with the PSP. If it did not, then the PSP authorization was valueless to them
and they would have to reapply. Mr. Brown suggested some modified wording in the resolution.
Referring to page 4, item #4) of the staff report, Mayor Boro quoted: "The project (after both
phases) would generate a total of 46 a.m. and 57 p.m. net new peak hour trips." Mr. Brown
stated that these were a net after both phases, and this was with removal of most of the grocery
store; therefore, should it be the desire of the neighborhood to retain the grocery store, the
maximum threshold of 75 morning and 80 evening trips would work.
Mayor Boro noted the neighborhood indicated that retaining the larger grocery store would
mean less trips as people would not be leaving.
Mr. Brown stated this was a misperception and explained that Mr. Mansourian was measuring
the trips right at the entrance to the project, and grocery stores generate quite a few trips;
therefore, the larger the grocery store, the more traffic generation in and out of that site. He
noted the neighbors' position was that it was preferable and meant shorter trips for them to get
to that site than into United Market, Whole Foods, etc. While those trips remained on Third
Street, no matter what, it was just a shorter trip to get into the site; however, a larger grocery
store would generate more ins and outs to the property.
Mayor Boro stated the issue was not the ins and outs into the property, rather the impact on
Third and Union Streets.
Mr. Brown stated that Mr. Mansourian had analyzed 75 morning and 80 evening trips and found
that it fit within the Level of Service standards at Third and Union.
Mr. Mansourian explained that staff looked at the worst case scenario under Phase I, which was
the housing added, and retaining the grocery store, and this resulted in 75 a.m. and 80 p.m.
peak hour trips. For Phase 11, because of the deletion of the market, the traffic the market
would have generated was redistributed back to the Third and Union area. Noting a 16,000
square -foot market would generate "x" number of trips at the site; however, with the removal of
the market the site was entitled to certain trips only. Mr. Mansourian stated that the Phase I
study for PSP was the worst case scenario and included the current market size.
Councilmember Cohen stated he understood the argument that in counting trips at the driveway
to this property, not having the market there meant fewer people going in and out, which
lowered the trip generation. He indicated that tonight's discussion concerned the impact at an
intersection close to town and neighbors in Loch Lomond, Glenwood, Peacock Gap, etc. going
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 11
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 12
in or out of the market did not have any impact on that. In fact, the neighbors could be correct
that in the absence of a full-service market, more people would be entering the impacted
intersection. At least for the purposes of PSP, Councilmember Cohen stated he was not
convinced that counting the trips at the driveway was making a correct analysis.
Councilmember Cohen noted the staff report and resolution indicated that in Phase I the project
would add 75 a.m. and 80 p.m. peak hour trips, and with the market and additional units in
Phase 11, he inquired how this would not add trips beyond the 75 and 80.
Mr. Mansourian explained that Phase I, which did not include the market, would have 75 a.m.
and 80 p.m. peak hour trips — the worst case scenario. Under Phase 11, even removing some of
the market square -footage, the remainder of the trips going to Third and Union were modeled
for the analysis. For PSP purposes the worst case scenario was evaluated — Phase I.
Councilmember Cohen stated that if Phase I generated 75 and 80 trips and Phase II had
additional units, he did not understand how those additional units did not bring additional trips to
Third and Union.
Mr. Mansourian explained that they did add trips to the Third and Union area; however, the net
number of trips at the site would be reduced. He stated the analysis included the additional
units for Phase II and it noted that some of the traffic for the market had to be redistributed into
the downtown area for shopping. In addition, turning movement counts were conducted at the
intersections from 7 — 9 a.m. and 4 — 6 p.m. He noted that at the September 12, 2006 Planning
Commission meeting a video presentation would be shown on how some of this work was
done. Mr. Mansourian stated that this data was also compared with their ITE (Institute of
Transportation Engineers) manuals, together with evaluating similar sites recently built and
occupied. He confirmed for Mayor Boro that these counts were done at various times of the
day when the schools were in session, usually in October, January and February at the times of
most vehicular traffic.
Driving through Third and Irwin Streets frequently, Mayor Boro stated he understood the traffic
situation, noting there were other issues in addition to traffic. He recalled from the staff report
an indication that once the Highway 101 work was completed there would be more relief, and
he invited Mr. Mansourian to expand on how he saw this impacting this intersection.
Mr. Mansourian reported that one of the observations made to determine the capacity in the
area using more factual numbers and theory, was that the Highway 101 southbound onramp at
Second and Hetherton Streets backs up to Second and Third Streets, especially Third between
Union and Hetherton. With the Highway 101 Gap Closure improvements the backup on the
freeway would be reduced, two lanes will be available to enter Highway 580, reducing some of
the 580/101 weaving sections, so the onramp backup would be reduced. He indicated that the
numbers to quantify that improvement were not available; therefore, staff retained the worst
case scenario.
Mr. Brown stated that PSP applications were a point in time, in this case, last November, and
the applicant was looking to change the project in response to the desires of the public for this
market. The bottom line was that the net total trips referred to in the resolution would not be
sufficient to do that; nonetheless, the discussion concerned what they applied for. Assuming
the applicant goes forward and has the full-service market, they would have to reapply for PSP
next year because he did not believe this number of trips would be sufficient to accommodate
the full-service market also.
Councilmember Cohen requested staff to explain the language "over 84 units" on Page 3 -
attachment 1-B - Qualifier A) in the staff report.
Mr. Boloyan clarified that this should read, "of 84 units."
Should the applicant be proposing to revise the project and have to return for revised PSP
approval, Councilmember Cohen inquired as to when this would take place.
Mr. Brown stated this would depend on when the process was run. He explained that typically
applications are requested in the fall and normally the process continues on and through mid-
year; however, he did not know when it would be initiated this year.
Mayor Boro requested clarification from Mr. Brown with regard to capacity with the full-sized
market added in.
Mr. Brown explained that the way the resolution was written nets out Phase I and Phase 11. He
noted Phase I was the worse case in that it had a full-sized market and most of the additional
residential units. Phase II reduced the traffic from this site only because of the loss of the
market; therefore, the end result was a total number of trips that was a net for Phase I and
Phase 11, which was only 46 in the morning and 57 in the evening. He indicated that Mr.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 12
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 13
Mansourian reviewed that, together with the maximum, Phase I; therefore, the way the
resolution was presented represented 46 morning and 57 evening trips, the net which probably
would not be adequate for the proposed number of housing units and a full-sized market. This,
therefore, would mean they would have to return at a later date for a different PSP application.
City Manager Ken Nordhoff stated that the merits of the decision for this evening related to PSP
and this particular application and the evaluation should be made on the project as submitted
last December. While conversations concerning various design alternatives, density, retail
usage, etc., were valid and would be part of the process that dealt with the development review
and the CEQA requirements, they would get off track from this evening's discussion. He
suggested that, albeit difficult, Council should stick to what had been applied for under PSP.
The application contained a certain number of units of housing, a certain size of retail and
should something through the development review process require additional trips, Council's
action this evening would be invalid in that the applicant would have to reapply. Mr. Nordhoff
noted there were several other projects in the development review process and should they
return with something greater than that approved this evening, they also would have to reapply.
Mayor Boro stated Mr. Nordhoff's remarks were helpful as he believed the discussion went off
track in talking about some of the other assumptions and what might or might not happen.
Mr. Nordhoff pointed out that there was not a new application; therefore, whether this retail
space was bigger or smaller was speculative.
Mr. Brown stated that in terms of a revised application, Mr. Mansourian would be discussing
traffic implications at the September 12, 2006 Planning Commission meeting and a Design
Review Board hearing on a revised proposal was expected most likely at the end of September,
2006.
Indicating he was still struggling with the logic of the trips going down in Phase 11,
Councilmember Cohen believed he had a better handle on it in the sense that the Phase I
numbers (75 and 80) included people going in and out who were just going to the market, which
were not trips at Third and Union; therefore, this was the reason the numbers could go down
even with more units. However, somewhere in the model, Mr. Mansourian modeled the impact
of the trips generated by this project in Phases I and 11 on Third and Union Streets, together with
the Level of Service impact which was what was being evaluated.
Councilmember Cohen suggested that perhaps in the future there be a serious discussion
concerning PSP and how it was played out given the very limited development potential
remaining in San Rafael. Assuming the City continued with this process, in terms of trip counts,
he believed staff should be evaluating the trip counts relative to the intersections being
evaluated, not the impact on the driveway to the project, as in this case. Noting he found it
confusing, as did the public, how numbers could go down with additional development;
however, he now had a better understanding of what was being counted.
Councilmember Cohen stated that based on this and based on the fact, as discussed earlier,
that this was not a merits decision, he was prepared to support this with the understanding that
should the project change it would be returned to the City Council for further action.
Regarding the comments expressed in letters submitted concerning the nature of this as a
housing opportunity site, Councilmember Cohen stated that although people may well disagree
with that decision and wish a different decision had been made as to the designation of the
property, at the conclusion of three and a half years and thousands of hours of public meetings,
public discussions, charettes, public hearings in front of the Planning Commission and this
Council and throughout the community to the point when neighborhood leaders in this Chamber
informed the City Council they had taken too long and had too many meetings concerning the
General Plan, that was the conclusion reached — that this site was to be designated as a
housing opportunity site. Indicating he could understand people could well disagree with that,
he did not believe it was helpful to state it was done in some underhanded fashion, too quickly
or with insufficient public debate. Councilmember Cohen acknowledged there was not public
agreement; however, he wanted to be clear that in his view a lot of discussion remained to be
had concerning the merits of this project.
Speaking only for himself, Councilmember Cohen stated he was aware of a lot of concerns and
questions raised by the neighbors to which they believed they did not have sufficient answers to
yet and he did not believe tonight's action was intended to cut off debate, claim that all the
answers had been provided or reached any kind of final decision. Councilmember Cohen
stated that his understanding of the vote being taken was merely to state that to the extent there
exists in the City's traffic model traffic capacity for this project as it was designed when this
application was submitted, the City Council was simply stating that this capacity was being
reserved while the project was being evaluated on its merits or demerits, as the neighbors could
feel. Councilmember Cohen stated that at least on his part, he did not want a vote on this to be
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 13
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 14
taken in any way as approving the project or bringing an end to the discussion the community
needed to have about whether or not this was a good project or needed to be revised. He
clarified that he did not wish this action to be misinterpreted; the City Council was simply
continuing the discussion and it would be premature to cut it off. He believed it should be
clearer, particularly if the project was returned, in exactly how the traffic analysis was presented
in discussing what traffic was being allocated. He was satisfied for the moment that he
understood what was being allocated and also he was relying on the fact that based on what
was stated, without pursuing it further, this project or a different project was likely to be seen
again in a PSP application.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution as
amended:
Page 3 — PSP05-03: Village at Loch Lomond Marina — Qualifier — A) Affordable Housing — to
read: "With a residential component of 84 units..."
Councilmember Heller stated it was her understanding at the outset this evening that the City
Council was merely voting on the traffic allocation as of the date of this application; therefore,
she was not, perhaps, as confused as Councilmember Cohen.
Indicating he wished to ensure the public understood, Councilmember Cohen stated that the
traffic count methodology was still confusing to him: however, he would discuss this with Mr.
Mansourian. He wished to make it clear the public understood the nature of the vote being
taken this evening was limited to a traffic allocation and in no way on the merits of the project.
Mayor Boro stated that the City Manager did articulate this at the outset and when the City
Council went astray, Mr. Nordhoff brought them back on track, for which he expressed thanks.
He reiterated that this was not approving the project, rather approving an allocation as
presented this evening yet to be determined through the planning and environmental review
processes. He believed it likely the City Council would rehear a PSP on this project should it
change significantly.
Councilmember Cohen noted a couple of Planning Commissioners disagreed with the Planning
Commission recommendation with respect to Whole Foods and they talked about the
community benefit. While not part of the recommendation, for which he was glad,
Councilmember Cohen stated the City should be very careful about the notion that a project that
impacted Third and Union Streets could write a check for a project in a different impacted area
and buy trips. He believed the City should be careful about the idea that traffic allocation could
be bought by funding something in another neighborhood as this was not a good precedent to
set.
Mayor Boro stated that the issue with Whole Foods was an existing one that needed to be
resolved before proceeding to the new issue. He looked to staff to take care of the existing
problem in order to deal with existing traffic, turns and the safety issues — pedestrian, crossings,
etc. — and hopefully, at that time Whole Foods would return with a proposal.
RESOLUTION NO. 12023 — RESOLUTION GRANTING 2005 PROJECT SELECTION
PROCESS (PSP) DETERMINATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT
IN THE CENTRAL SAN RAFAEL AREA; City File Nos.:
PSP05-02, PSP05-03, PSP05-08, PSP05-06 (Page 3 PSP05-
03; VILLAGE AT LOCH LOMOND MARINA (110 LOCH
LOMOND DR.) — Qualifier - A) amended to read "With a
residential component of 84 units..."
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips
Mayor Boro briefly paused the City Council Meeting.
Resuming at 10:00 p.m. Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened.
Public Hearing #3 — West Francisco Boulevard Area:
Mr. Boloyan stated this area had three applications, all of which were car dealerships:
438 West Francisco was a proposal for new vehicle sales and service which would generate
$75,000 in annual sales tax directly to the City and translated to $6,250 per new trip. It was an
unnamed dealership.
550 West Francisco was a new pre -owned vehicle sales for RAB Motors just south of their
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 14
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 15
existing facility. The project was estimated to generate $150,000 annual sales tax which
translated to approximately over $10,000 for every new trip.
694/720 Francisco —just north of the existing Sonnen VW and Audi dealership. This proposal
would create a new Nissan dealership with both sales and service on an existing 5 -acre site,
formerly the Baxters Court industrial area. It would generate $193,000 in annual sales tax,
approximately $2,244 per new trip.
Mr. Boloyan reported that the traffic results from the analysis of these three projects had shown
that all three proposed car dealerships would meet the Level of Service standards, and all three
projects, individually and cumulatively, would generate less trips than historically existed along
this corridor. He recalled that some of the uses were demolished as part of the Caltrans HOV
project; therefore, these new projects would generate less trips than the historical levels.
Based on this, Mr. Boloyan stated that both staff and the Planning Commission recommended
granting PSP determination for all three of the West Francisco Boulevard projects, given that all
three provided significant amounts of public benefit through the additional sales tax, with
minimal impacts on the circulation network.
With regard to the Nissan dealership, Councilmember Heller noted the staff report indicated
$168,000 in tax generation and the slide presentation $193,000.
Mr. Boloyan confirmed that there was an additional sales tax generation from parts and service
of $25,000; therefore, the figure of $193,000 was the correct one.
There being no comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 112024— RESOLUTION GRANTING 2005 PROJECT SELECTION
PROCESS (PSP) DETERMINATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN
THE WEST FRANCISCO BLVD. AREA; City File Nos.: PSP05-
02, PSP05-04, PSP05-05 AND PSP05-01
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips
Public Hearing #4 — East San Rafael Area:
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened.
Mr. Boloyan explained that two applications were submitted for the East San Rafael area
Marin Square — Mixed Use project which would entail the demolition of approximately 30,000
square -feet of office and retail and the construction of 120 residential units and 20,000 square -
feet of new retail. 19 Below Market Rate units were proposed in the housing component and
the new retail square footage was estimated to generate $30,000 in annual sales tax directly to
the City.
Shoreline Center (Target) — A 137,000 square -foot Target store with an outdoor garden center.
The project was estimated to generate $450,000 in annual sales tax directly to the City. He
noted this was without the Measure `S' funds.
Mr. Boloyan stated that during the Planning Commission review, the PSP committee
recommended granting PSP to only the Marin Square project. This recommendation of denial
for Target was based on the project adding a significant number of new trips to the already
impacted intersection. He reported that the traffic analysis the City used for this
recommendation utilized trip generation rates from typical or generic big box retail stores and
this amount would result in 115 a.m. and 627 p.m. trips. Mr. Boloyan clarified a typographical
error in the staff report where the trip generation rate was shown as 240 a.m. trips — this should
have read 115 a.m. trips; however, the analysis was based on the 115 a.m. trips.
Explaining the reasoning for staff using the generic trip rates, Mr. Boloyan stated that Land Use
decisions were not based on specific tenants, brands or stores, rather on typical land uses.
Should these land uses or tenants change in the future and Target were to go away, another
large box retail store could replace it with a higher trip generation.
Mr. Boloyan explained that a further reason for staff recommending against the Target proposal was
the pending reuse of the former ILM (Industrial Light and Magic) buildings on Kerner Boulevard.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 15
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 16
There was concern about the potential re -tenanting and the traffic impacts from that.
Mr. Boloyan stated that during the Planning Commission meeting the applicant's traffic engineer
concurred with Mr. Mansourian's conclusions on what the impacts would be based on the
generic traffic rates; however, they argued that the Target store specifically generated less rates
than the number of trips estimated by the City using the generic big box stores. They also
indicated that Target would be purchasing the site from the Shoreline Center and would be
willing to record a deed restriction on the property limiting future use of the building to Target's
specific traffic generation rates. Mr. Boloyan stated that based on this the Planning
Commission recommended granting PSP for the number of trips a specific Target store would
require as long as the deed restriction was legal and could be practically enforced in the future if
Target were ever to vacate the building.
Reporting that since the last meeting, City Traffic Engineer Mr. Mansourian had re -analyzed the
data using the revised trip rates, Mr. Boloyan stated that in the East San Rafael area, five
intersections and one arterial were analyzed and noted that current existing baseline conditions
had changed since the adoption of General Plan 2020:
• The intersection at Bellam and Kerner had gone from Level of Service D to E when the
General Plan was adopted during the a.m. peak period. The current condition exceeds
the City's LOS.
• The Bellam corridor eastbound — from Andersen to Kerner — this arterial also operates at
LOS E or F, which already exceeds the current City's LOS standards.
Mr. Boloyan reported that since the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Mansourian had
reviewed and counted at Target in Albany to identify the number of trips that facility generates
to establish the specific Target rate:
• Data collection revealed that in the a.m., trip generation at that site was similar to the
generic rate used by the Institute of Traffic Engineers. P.M. trip generation at the Albany
target was approximately 40% less than the generic trip rates.
• Applying the Target specific rates to the proposed Target facility at Shoreline would
result in 115 a.m. and 394 p.m. peak hour trips, compared to 115 a.m. and 627 p.m. for
generic discount retail used for the Planning Commission analysis.
Mr. Boloyan reported that Mr. Mansourian re -analyzed the project using the new data with the
following results:
• The Marin Square project proposal - results of this traffic analysis did not change since
the Planning Commission meeting. This application does not add any traffic to the
Bellam/Kerner intersection, but would reduce travel speed on the corridor by 0.1 miles
per hour and this exceeds the City's arterial LOS policy and translates to a 0.1 %
deterioration in capacity along that corridor.
• Because this corridor exceeds City Levels of Service policy, it would need a LOS
Exception to be granted by the City Council through the project merits review, and an
EIR with consideration for significant overriding considerations granted by the City in
order to approve this project.
• In the traffic analysis it was also noted that there could be some operational issues with
the project that did not show up in the LOS calculations, and these were specifically at
the driveways of Andersen and Gary Place and the freeway on and off ramp queuing,
which would be "hot button" issues for Caltrans.
• In looking at the Target application and using the revised Target rates, it was found that
that proposal would exceed the City's intersection and arterial LOS standards by adding
2.2 seconds of delay at Bellam/Kerner and decreasing the travel speed by 0.2 miles per
hour in the a.m. This translated into a deterioration in capacity along this corridor by up
to 2.3% in the a.m. and up to 5.9% in the p.m.
• Because this project would exceed City policy for LOS it would require a Level of
Service Exception to be granted by the City Council and an EIR with overriding
considerations granted.
Mr. Boloyan reported that the other traffic analysis done was a combination of the two projects
to understand the cumulative effect should both projects be approved.
• Intersection analysis — both projects combined would exceed the City's adopted traffic
standards by increasing delay at the intersection of Bellam and Kerner by 2.3 seconds in
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 16
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 17
the a.m. The combination of the two projects would add 11 seconds of delay in the
afternoon; however, the afternoon would still operate within an acceptable LOS D.
• Arterial analysis — combination of the two projects would reduce the average speed for
the corridor by 0.2 miles per hour in the a.m. and would therefore, exceed the City's LOS
for arterial standards.
Mr. Boloyan reported that the Planning Commission recommended granting PSP determination
for both East San Rafael project given that:
• The Marin Square Project proposes a significant amount of affordable housing units on
a site designated in the General Plan as a housing opportunity site.
• Even though the project would exceed LOS policy for the effected arterial, it would only
slightly deteriorate the Bellam arterial by 1.2%, and the number of new trips through this
arterial would be insignificant with the benefits of the project outweighing the impacts.
• The Planning Commission recommended that this project should be reserved traffic
capacity where project entitlements and environmental review were submitted, reviewed
and analyzed.
• For the Target development, the Planning Commission found that the project would
provide a significant amount of additional sales tax ($450,000) which equates to $519
per new trip generated using the generic rates or $884 per new trip using the Target
specific rates.
• The Planning Commission also found that although the project would exceed City LOS
standards for both the arterial and the intersection, the benefits of the high tax
generating use would significantly outweigh the deviation from the LOS standards and
the impacts on the circulation system.
• Staff had conferred with the City Attorney's office regarding the feasibility and legality of
imposing a restriction on future reuse of the site to uses with traffic generation approved
for the Target use, and it was found that such a restriction could legally be created and
similar restrictions had been placed on other properties.
• Should PSP be granted for the Target proposal, the specifics of a deed restriction would
be resolved during the processing of the formal planning applications to memorialize
whatever trip allocations were granted.
• The Planning Commission recommended that this project should be reserved traffic
capacity while the project entitlements were submitted, reviewed and analyzed.
Councilmember Heller commented that she had believed the Gary Place exit would be closed
as part of the Highway 101 HOV Gap Closure project.
Mr. Mansourian confirmed this to be the Highway 101 southbound offramp that intersects
Andersen and that this ramp would be closed.
Tom Monahan, representing the Marin Square project, stated they had owned the site for
approximately two and a half years with the intention of redeveloping it. He indicated that the
application included housing as a benefit, and some additional retail.
Indicating they were faced with a couple of challenges and being aware that this evening's
meeting was to reserve the capacity, Mr. Monahan stated that in order for them to go forward
with this application, develop the project and provide the housing, they would like Council to
further expand on the ultimate support. He explained that to go forward with the application
they would have to suffer pretty significant loss of income from the existing tenants combined
with the cost, time and pursuit of potentially what would be an EIR to bring the project about.
He also noted that the size of the project was significant — retail on the ground floor with four
floors of residential above.
Referring to a concept drawing from the General Plan, Mr. Monahan stated this showed a
picture of their site with retail on the ground floor and four floors of residential, making the
building the tallest in the southeast part of town and which would be significant when viewed
going down Highway 101. He compared it to the size of the Town Center project in terms of
scale, albeit not quite as big.
While he realized tonight's hearing was just to reserve traffic capacity, Mr. Monahan stated it
opened the door for them to spend a lot of time and staff effort to get to the ultimate question
which would be before Council in approximately a year from now. Noting the CEQA process
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 17
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 18
had yet to go through, as well as traffic, he indicated they would like to hear any dialogue or
discussion Council might provide as they try to make their decision.
Mayor Boro stated he did not feel it would be appropriate for each of them to comment directly.
He indicated that the City Council was very committed to developing housing in the City, they
were very committed to developing Below Market Rate housing, which this project had, and as
far as the height and massing, this was something the applicant would have to deal with.
Noting it was a critical site, Mayor Boro stated that should it be done as well as the building just
mentioned, it should be a very attractive building on entering town. He stated he would look to
the applicant to make it not a box, rather a landmark entering San Rafael.
Not having anything before the Council, Mayor Boro did not think it appropriate to comment;
however, he indicated that Mr. Monahan could talk to individual Councilmembers anytime he
wished over the next several months with his ideas. He understood that in order to get housing
of this density, height would be involved and there would be tradeoffs.
Jim Draper, Bret Harte Community Association, stated that Bret Hart residents met with
representatives of Monahan Pacific, including Mr. Monahan, in 2005, and appreciated the
interest in getting feedback from the community. Noting a number of issues were discussed
that evening, Mr. Draper believed the two most important areas to them were that the project
should enhance the safety of pedestrians going from one part of the intersection to the other,
and the traffic and how to deal with reconfiguring the entrances and exits. He noted this would
be essential, especially if the Target project went forward also.
Mr. Draper stated they were glad to see in the plans so far that pedestrian access was
improved with setbacks and sidewalks; however, there was no particular plan at this point to
alter the vehicle access which was a major concern. He noted that anyone frequenting Marin
Square was aware of the challenge to exit onto Bellam, as well as exiting on Gary Place onto
Andersen.
Mr. Draper stated that Bret Harte would like to see some realistic proposals in the future,
hopefully between Monahan, San Rafael and Caltrans, for whatever it took to re -work that area
to mitigate the traffic issues.
Bob Wright, TWM Architects, representing the Target project, stated that at the Planning
Commission meeting earlier to discuss the PSP he believed it necessary to give a brief history
of this project and how the site had developed over the past twenty years; however, this
evening, he did not think this was necessary.
Indicating that the development team, representatives from Target, their Traffic Engineer and
the property owner were present, Mr. Wright stated he would make himself available for
questions. The Target representative would comment, subsequent to which he, Mr. Wright,
would make a final comment.
John Dewes, Senior Development Manager, Target Corporation, Minneapolis, noted this
evening's action just related to PSP and traffic issues, part of which was the proposed public
benefit. In terms of Target, formerly Dayton Hudson, he stated their community giving program
was the basis for the core values of their company. He noted they give $2 million per week to
communities and locations where they have stores, which is over $100 million per year and
since its inception in 1947, this amounted to over $1 billion.
Mr. Dewes explained there were three main areas of focus in the Community Giving Programs:
Education, The Arts and Social Action, particularly family violence prevention, areas they feel
strongly about and work very closely with within the community. Indicating that the involvement
goes beyond these programs and noting discussion regarding a Target leaving and being
replaced, Mr. Dewes stated no one would have to worry about their leaving.
As opposed to most other larger retailers, Mr. Dewes stated they do not do ground leases. Of
their 1,400 stores, over 90% of them were owned properties which would be the case in San
Rafael. He believed that owning the property was a commitment not only to Target and their
shareholders, but to the community at large.
Mr. Dewes stated that within the community there would be between 250 and 300 jobs created
and the vast majority of these workers would be San Rafael residents. He indicated that they
would conduct a series of job fairs while under construction.
In terms of the potential agreement Mr. Dewes stated Paul Anderson, Counsel and former City
Attorney for the City of Sausalito was present and would explain.
Paul Anderson, Attorney, stated it was not part of Target's business model to expect any other
user besides Target on this site. He noted some concern was expressed at a Planning
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 18
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 19
Commission meeting as to what would happen in that unlikely event. Having talked to Mr.
Ragghianti a number of times, Mr. Anderson stated they were willing to work with City staff, City
Attorney Ragghianti and the City Council as to a mechanism to ensure predictability and
reliability.
Bob Wright stated that one of the criteria for selection as a PSP project was that the project
needed to be under construction within twenty-four months. As outlined in their brief project
description submitted with the application, he indicated that not only would they be under
construction in twenty-four months, but being opened within twenty-four months, thereby
contributing tax to the City well ahead of time.
There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing.
Mayor Boro commented that long ago before Marin Square there was an outdoor theater there
and when he was very young and on the Planning Commission, a Target store was proposed
for that site.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 12025 — RESOLUTION GRANTING 2005 PROJECT SELECTION
PROCESS (PSP) DETERMINATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT
IN THE EAST SAN RAFAEL AREA; City File Nos.: PSP05-12
AND PSP05-10
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT:
10. None.
COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS:
Cohen, Heller, Miller and Mayor Boro
None
Phillips
11. Community Choice Aggregation: - File 9-1
Councilmember Cohen stated that at a later date he and Councilmember Miller should update
the City Council on a meeting they attended today regarding Community Choice Aggregation.
Should the City Council agree to further consideration this would require some staff time and
one or two Councilmembers; therefore, further discussion was necessary.
SMART: - File 245
Mayor Boro reported that tomorrow, Tuesday, August 22, 2006, at Noon, former Transportation
Secretary, Norman Mineta, would be at the downtown Transit Center to kick-off the SMART
(Sonoma/Marin Area Rail Transit) ballot measure campaign.
There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council meeting at 10:30 p.m.
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 12006
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/21/2006 Page 19